Re: [tied] -phóros, -phorós, -fer

On 2006-04-10 14:57, Rob wrote:

> Yes, it seems to me like analogy is the only possible explanation
> here. Besides, _dharma-bhr.t'-_ may be a more recent compound than
> _nr.-hán-_.

If anything, it's older, since the "compositional root noun" is a
thoroughly obscured formation, occurring _only_ in compounds, as opposed
to both e-grade root nouns and o-infixed thematics, which occur
independently and are freely available for productive composition.

> Oops, you're probably right. I'll have to consult my sources to be
> sure. If I'm not mistaken, the object-agent compounds are more recent
> than the bahuvrihis, correct?

For all I know, both endocentric and exocentric compounds may have
existed in PIE and pre-PIE for so long that it makes little sense to ask
which type is older.

piotr